Uhhh no, otherwise the side ERA would be producing in excess of 200mm of KE protection, currently the side ERA actually produces less protection than the same front ERA blocks even though there is a third set of blocks present.
The combined protection of all 3 duplet blocks, if we are only taking into account what the front, singular duplet blocks produce, should be 930mm of CE and 420mm of KE protection from the blocks alone, such is not the case.
The side ERA is visually just 3 layers of duplet, yet, they only act as 1 and a little bit more currently.
No. I ain’t explaining the whole principle of Nizh ERA and its inserts (you can read the subject on Oplot dev server thread) but the side complex contains 1 layer of model 34 inserts (the same as on hull front and turrent front) and 2 layers of model 19A (much weaker than model 34), and the angle taken into account to claculate side ERA protection values is ~30°, not 68°, thus effect is lower.
I agree the “not missing layer” part
but still, the number of protections that developer set is almost the lowest estimation, they should give a little more.
and many details are not modeled, like the partition between ERAs and the addition armor on driver’s view, causing many weak points.
Devs and bug report mods like pulling out that UAM brochure stating “60% KE protection against 3BM42/DM33/M829”, and they count it as primary source in order to justify that like 70% of total front armor can stop only about 2/3 of 3BM42 LoS penetration.
Is it true? More yes than no.
Yes because live firing tests performed with 3BM42 kind of prove the point made by UAM.
No because again, there is speculation on who has more accurate data, Microtek (the original developer of ERA, and whoose inserts are used in Oplots) or UAM (another developer and manufacturer that has its own products).
So far UAM and live firing tests align, thus making dev’s point right.
You cannot just say “you should give a little more because reasons”.
This subject looks to be touchy for some people here (you can tell that from reading this thread alone) as “dev is right” and pull out anything to prove you wrong, and again, one cannot just say “give a little more” without solid evidence, which is wild, because it turns out one thing is modeling Ukainian tank armor using gazillion sources and the other modeling and inventing stats for Russian missile from thin air because the only practical source is that brochure from exhibition.
the 3BM42 is the worst among these isn’t it? that’s the reason why I said “a bit more”
and 3BM42’s special structure(segmented core) do gives it an advantage in dealing this kind of ERA.
I’m not so a fan of Nozh, and even doubt its actual performance(I think you know the recent debate of Andre and other Tank researchers).
but considering in game, I think 60% KE protection against DM33/M829 would be fine.
Lower enough to make it identical to Relkit, how curious that both arrays produce the exact same amount of protection when one has almost quadruple the volume, additional spacer inserts and far more standoff.
All of that matters of course, but if you understand how Nizh actually works (a lot of people fail to comprehend the principles of Relikt and Nizh/Duplet ERA functioning, which matters a lot), you will also understand why Nizh is worse when calculated closer to 0° angle.
Btw we have an image of the UFP module blueprint which clearly shows the 50mm plate
Image deleted due to potentially classified nature
You are exactly right, BM42 is better at dealing with ERA, Monoblock projectiles such as BM60 will have a much harder time against Duplet/Nizh. In 2003 UAE trials, OFL 120F1 was almost completely stopped by the ERA, only leaving a 20mm dent on the base armour. But ofc different APFSDS types are not modelled in game, of course since Oplot is not a Russian vehicle, they will give it the worst possible stats instead of making some kind of compromise considering better performance against monoblock projectiles.
Also btw don’t believe the 60% number so readily, in the test footage it was never mentioned how much of 3BM42 penetration was decreased when fired on the hull, neither are there any Mikrotek documents saying 60% reduction of BM42. The pamphlet that states 60% reduction of BM42 is by a different company and specifically states that these are numbers for a different lighter weight ERA, not the same as Duplet that is used on tanks in service.
After re-analyzing the test footage of BM42 fired at the turret mockup by most likely a T-80UD, I wanna say that the ERA is definitely underperforming in comparison to the footage.
This is the angle the round was fired at. It’s hard to tell exactly what the angle is, but it’s close to the angle of BM Oplot turret cheek, as if it was facing the firing tank. Around 60 degrees.
At 100m and 60 degrees 3BM42 has 550mm penetration in war thunder.
Footage states that a 60mm residual penetration on the normal was observed. This means 120mm residual penetration when taking into account the 60 degree angle.
This means Duplet on the turret should stop slightly more than 78% of 3BM42 penetration according to test footage. This lines up with official brochure and articles stating 80-90% penetration reduction of sub caliber rounds.
Regarding BM42 penetration on the hull armour, the tests do not state how much residual penetration was observed, we can only see a low quality image, where we cannot see if shown is the 50mm plate behind the first layer of ERA, or 60mm plate behind two layers of ERA.
Additionally we don’t even know if this module was made according to patent where the 50mm steel plate is missing or according to BM Oplot specifications.
If calculated according to test footage, 430mm protection against kinetic munitions from ERA + whatever the non ERA hull armour comes out to (3 steel plates 50+60+50mm, 15mm steel cover, and 35mm Textolite. It should be well above 800mm kinetic protection. Way better than BVM or T-90M.
Ofc devs claim that the 50mm plate between the two layers of ERA is a ‘dampener’ and its protection should be included in the ERA values. Quite an outrageous claim but even if this was done, the armour should still be above 700mm against kinetic munitions.
Also keep in mind the performance of the ERA against 3BM42 is reduced and 430mm kinetic protection (78% penetration reduction) is actually the lower end of the value, if we look at OFL 120 F1 tests, the penetration reduction was way higher.
I believe it was already pointed out that the trialed Nizh insert in UAE against OFL 120 F1 was model 25.
There were probably tests of model 34 and 19 as well in UAE, but because we have no available pages online for it, OFL 120 vs model 34 is more of a theory than practice
I have heard this before but don’t know where it was stated that it was ХСЧКВ 25, the only fragments of the report we have state “ХСЧКВ” without specifying the exact model. Also since 25 is a prototype version of 34, shouldn’t the performance be comparable or perhaps even worse?
